Is my character a Mary Sue?

I don't know much about cancer, but to me it seems highly unlikely that she would be diagnosed with two different kinds of it. Maybe she could have a relapse instead?

Also, it seems pretty unlikely that a doctor would encourage her to have a child at such a young age--it just doesn't seem realistic or professional, and it seems to give off a vibe of the doctor thinking "All you're good for is bearing children, so you better hurry up and do that before you can't anymore."

Sorry, I think I got sort of off-topic...but yeah, these were my thoughts on it.​

 

No Mary Sue here.

Mary sue would be this.

This character is great at everything, this character has beaten every disease. This character is a stereotype. This character is a rebel against society. Thats a mary sue.

 

Actually, it's not. A Mary Sue is a character who is an idealized representation of the author. It's a common misunderstanding.

 

Ohh. Thanks!

I am thinking of cliched then right?

 

Nope. A cliche is an overused word or phrase, one that has lost whatever impact it ever had. Characters and plots cannot be cliche, because they have no meaning other than what they contribute to an actual story.

Ed was correct about the original meaning of Mary Sue. What it has become is a label used by people too lazy to come up with an actual reason they don't find a character compelling. When applied to a character summary, it is complete bullflop.

 

So then it would be a stereotype or just a poorly written character?

So the internet lied to me, what a surprise! What ever shall I do against the tides of angry nerds.... (Turns off sarcasm)

 

I see you've had quite a first day. So, welcome to the site.

We have quite a collection of people here. A few are published writers. Some have been aspiring long enough to have a pretty good idea of what's what. Some have no clue. This last group is split between those who know they have no clue and those who don't. I liken this forum to a large study group (if you ever read The Paper Chase, you know what I mean): we share experiences and share what we know. Some members share what they think they know, but really don't. Some offer misconceptions that are oft-repeated, but are wrong nonetheless. When that happens, it can bring a variety of reactions. It's not personal, it's business.

One aside: the internet neither lies nor tells the truth. It does not act; it is acted upon.

 

How do you know if your character is too much a characterization of yourself? My main character's background and appearance are different from mine. But, some of her mannerisms and reactions are similar to what I'd do.

 

MARY SUE: (From Urbandictionary.com I chose this particular site to give you a glimpse into what the general, non-bibliophile, view of a "Mary Sue" is.)

 

Most of us reflect a bit out ourselves in our characters. A "Mary Sue" reflects an idealized version of the author - everything the author wishes (s)he could be. It is also a term that originated, as @Alesia's clip points out, in "Star Trek" fan fic. I believe part of the mix was a portrayed romantic relationship between the character and an established male character.

But @Cogito's point is well taken. Critiques, whether of characters, stories or style, that rely on shorthand terms like "Mary Sue" are not worth very much to the writer seeking them. Detailed specifics are what is needed.

 

The thing about "Mary Sue" is that it's often a term exclusively applied to fanfic female leads. That's why I quit posting fanfics publically: it's impossible to please a reader in that universe with a female lead. Good looks and no conflict? "Mary Sue!" Average looks and conflict? "Victim Sue!" Good fighter? "Warrior Sue!" Skilled in magic? "Mage Sue!" The list goes on...

On a side note: The name originated in the 1973 Paula Smith fanfic titled A Trekkies Tale. The MC, Lieutenant Mary Sue was supposedly the youngest graduate of the academy at only fifteen years old. In addition to being a stunningly beautiful genius, it was said that she was skilled in nearly all forms of combat, including karate, and was having simultaneous affairs with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. In essence she was the equivalent of when you play Fallout and have a character with a perfect 10 S.P.E.C.I.A.L score and 100 in all skills.

Years later, at At Clippercon 1987 (a Star Trek fan convention held yearly in Baltimore, Maryland), Paula Smith interviewed a panel of female authors who claimed they do not include female characters in their stories at all. She quoted one as saying "Every time I've tried to put a woman in any story I've ever written, everyone immediately says, this is a Mary Sue." Smith also pointed out that "Participants in a panel discussion in January 1990 noted with growing dismay that any female character created within the writing community is damned with the term Mary Sue."

 

No, I don't see anything 'Mary Sue' in your plot and I agree with the other members that you shouldn't write only what you think people want to read. "Different strokes for different folks." My mother says. Writing is supposed to be a fun, creative outlet. Letting other people dictate how your story should be sucks all the fun out of it.

It's okay to ask for suggestions. Just be mindful you don't always have to apply all of them.

I think it would be okay if you kept the baby.You could make the character a bit older maybe and then the doctors advice wouldn't sound so odd for someone in her situation. Also try researching more about doctor proceedings to make you story more believable.

 

I like to approach Mary-Sue characters by exploring what would happen to the story if you took out an element. It's sounding pretty melodramatic right now.

Why is it important that she have a child? Is this just to bring a teenage mother element into it? (I think that rich family and purposefully breeding her at a young age can't do much angst except for her later getting angry at not bonding with the only child she could have.) The teenage mother thing brings more drama if it would cause shame to a rich family or hardship to a poor family.

You don't need to kill the baby-daddy. There are many ways for him to disappear, most of them being that her family would need federal bribes to find him. (Or him being stupid on the internet.) He could have lost interest, or gotten mixed with a bad crowd, or witnessed a murder and didn't put her on the contact list when he went into witness protection, or he could have been arrested for drunk driving and not well-off enough to buy the best lawyer.

Research a disease that might affect her from childhood until now... I am sure that there are several. My instinct is to start with hemophilia and severe asthma.

Being privileged is a Mary-Sue trait, but it sounds like the most salvageable element... or changing it would warp your story the most. A poor person would not survive a debilitating disease as well as the privileged. And she couldn't have chosen music as her outlet, it would be more likely that she spend her time doing something useful and less glamorous. (Is music important, or could she have some equally-useless obsession?)

 

Just think about it this way: By technical definition, Bruce Wayne (Batman) is a "Marty Stu." But look how big that franchise is...

 

I find Mary Sue concept to be sexist, since it's mostly applied to female characters, when there are lots of male overpowered characters and chosen ones who save the world all by themselves and no one gives a damn (Superman above all). No one cares about Gary Stus, while Mary Sues get a lot of flack.

I also need to mention that being "overpowered" is relative to the universe the work takes place in. Your lead may be super strong, but they might have to fight even stronger foes. And superpowers alone don't make a character strong.

The original concept of Mary Sue is basically what Ed said: a self-insert (very important!), who's basically the author themself but idealized, who always gets what they want.

Having a tragic past might be cliché but it doesn't make the character a Mary Sue. And, let's face it, people with tragic pasts make for more interesting reads than spoilt brats who always got everything they wanted. That's why they're so common.

 

Sexist is the least of the problems with the label. It's intellectually lazy. Its nothing more than name-calling in the absence of any real reasoning into the problems of portraying a character. It's shallow and dismissive.

You can't judge a character on the basis of a capsule description. It all comes down to how the character is written out over the course of the story or novel.

 

I tried to read a book by Francis Knight a while ago and it was the WORST Gary Stu I have ever come across. He was a handsome, magical womaniser and you could tell the author was thinking 'This guy is the COOLEST'. Ick.
On the other hand, I think superheroes are an entirely different thing. It's sort of ok that they're wish fulfilment because they're the wish fulfilment of the whole audience.
As to the OP, I was with it until the doc telling her to get pregnant. Not bloody likely. MAYBE, with a long, very professional conversation involving her parents, the topic might be broached. But there are other options for having babies later on down the track (such as adoption) and this would be a more likely suggestion from a doctor than encouraging a teenager to get pregnant, esp at 14. Not gonna happen.
Also, this puts her in a sort of victim situation, because "Oh no, it's not my fault, I have issues and the doctor said-" which kind of does put her in mary sue territory. If the doctor told her she might have problems with fertilisation later and she just panicked and got herself pregnant, the whole thing would be far more likely.

 

The only person to know if a character is a Mary Sue is the author while the ones to be annoyed by Mary Sues are the readers. This makes sense when you consider that readers aren't annoyed by characters strictly because they're Mary Sues, but because they're annoying, and of course there's plenty of overlap. "Write what you know" is important, but it doesn't mean "write what you are", "write what you want to be" or "write what you think is perfect". It means you should draw on all your experiences, not just those about you, but also ones you've noticed about others, be they good or bad traits. Put all of these into a box and shake it well and hard, and out comes a well-rounded, realistic and non-annoying character each time.

Simply refrain from making any of your characters perfect in your own eyes. You can still give them near-perfection in certain areas (be it beauty, magic, archery, public speaking, risk assessment, kissing or cooking) or their personality/characteristics. It's not your fault or problem, not actually a problem at all in fact, if any of your readers wind up finding a character of yours perfect; it merely is easier and more realistic if you make sure this doesn't happen for you, and it is most probable readers love the character for the exact reason that you put so much care and effort into not making them flat and boring.

Have them stutter. Have them experience memory loss. Have them be bad at sports or emotions or with money or the opposite sex. Whatever it is let them be human like you and me. Think about the characters that are popular. Frodo, Harry, Iron Man, Scarface, Katniss, Dominick Cobb, Bart and Homer Simpson, Lenny Small. These characters haven't reached their status despite of their imperfections: they have reached it because of them. We like seeing ourselves in others and we relate because we are human too. We get bored as much from the predictable perfection of characters as we get with characters in shows whose plots seem to happen because every character seems to be stupid enough to put everyone in danger time after time and dumb enough to not run sideways when chased by a giant boulder down a hill, and even that last one is slightly redeemed by it being amusing every once in a while, while perfection makes us bored, jealous, irritated and mad at the creator for creating such unrelatable and one-sided characters. It's when characters differ it gets interesting. It's then that we can see conflicts, love, loss and friendship blossom or wither. It's then that we find that interesting, because we care about these characters because they have real lives and problems and things they care about and want and we don't know what's going to happen to them and we revel in the fact that the creator was creative enough and took their time to create something truly believeable that we can relate to.

 

That's not a Mary Sue, imo.

I don't think a Doctor would tell someone who was that young to run out and have a child (maybe they would depending on the country). It could be something that she decides to do without permission which could make her look stupid and selfish to some readers. Also, there are cases where people freeze eggs and sperm (I think they can freeze eggs). I could see her asking a friend to be a surrogate mother to her baby one day.